[Dartmouth] Europa Tower (1 Horizon) | 85 m | 27 fl | U/C

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

As an aside, while I think this is unfortunate from a public trust POV, I'm not so sure it's overall a bad thing. All-glass towers certainly have a slick appeal to them, but they're notorious for having terrible heat gain problems in the summer and very poor insulation in the winter (and also often water problems).

That's definitely true, and I actually think the all-glass towers you see in Vancouver and Toronto are getting a bit tired-looking. BUT, while glass towers may be know for poor insulation and heat loss, this particular developer's other buildings are known for being super crap-looking. So...

[sdm]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Sadly, I think the developer has a leg to stand on here. Reading the DA:

"3.4.2 The design, form, and exterior materials of the building shall, in the opinion of the Development Officer, generally conform to the Building Elevations included with this Agreement as Schedules F, G and H."

First of all, that's a fairly loose requirement with a lot of room for latitude. Second, Shedules F, G, H are basic 2D elevations with almost no reference to what the exterior materials are intended to be. In other words, there's absolutely nothing to hold the developer to the renderings. I won't speculate as to where the blame lies for this (intentional?) looseness. Further reminder that the number one rule of the development realm is that renderings don't mean squat.

As an aside, while I think this is unfortunate from a public trust POV, I'm not so sure it's overall a bad thing. All-glass towers certainly have a slick appeal to them, but they're notorious for having terrible heat gain problems in the summer and very poor insulation in the winter (and also often water problems).

Good point Ian, this generally leaves the power to the Development officer it his opinion. The question is "generally" would typically mean minor variations.

Interesting when you review what the elevation details show on the following doc.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...43Drawings.pdf

[someone123]

In the past the city has issued DAs that don't even specify particular cladding materials. Some of the precast in Halifax was approved as "stone or stone-like" material.

It makes sense for DAs to be specific, and for changes to the plans to require approval, but I wonder if that would slow development down a lot because of poor turnaround times.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by sdm

Good point Ian, this generally leaves the power to the Development officer it his opinion. The question is "generally" would typically mean minor variations.

Interesting when you review what the elevation details show on the following doc.

http://www.halifax.ca/planning/docum...43Drawings.pdf

Then it looks like turning this one down would be a reasonable outcome, because the elevations point out specific building features to be constructed of specific materials, and the rest (about 90% of the visible surface area) is glass, with some aluminum cladding. I guess a building clad largely in metal might look cool, but I think that's the only thing they could really get away with. There's no way to reasonably infer from the elevations that any of the cladding could potentially be precast/wood/brick/whatever.

[IanWatson]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Then it looks like turning this one down would be a reasonable outcome, because the elevations point out specific building features to be constructed of specific materials, and the rest (about 90% of the visible surface area) is glass, with some aluminum cladding. I guess a building clad largely in metal might look cool, but I think that's the only thing they could really get away with. There's no way to reasonably infer from the elevations that any of the cladding could potentially be precast/wood/brick/whatever.

Except the elevations in that link are not the ones attached to the DA. The DA ones are even more vague, and while they could be inferred as glass, I would say it's also possible to argue that they do not depict glass and instead are some sort of panellized concrete.

Originally Posted by someone123

It makes sense for DAs to be specific, and for changes to the plans to require approval, but I wonder if that would slow development down a lot because of poor turnaround times.

And therein lies the challenge and art of writing good DAs. You can be specific, and risk needing time-consuming amendments if market conditions change or if the developer realizes that what they promised is just not possible. On the flip side, you can be non-specific and risk the developer doing the absolute bare minimum allowed under your loose wording. I'm not sure which is better.

Originally Posted by Drybrain

That's definitely true, and I actually think the all-glass towers you see in Vancouver and Toronto are getting a bit tired-looking. BUT, while glass towers may be know for poor insulation and heat loss, this particular developer's other buildings are known for being super crap-looking. So...

And I guess that really is the nub of the issue. What we're really discussing/should be discussing is quality of materials, rather than the materials themselves. There are certainly some very nice glass buildings that are likely also energy-efficient (new NSP building has tons of insulation behind the glass), and there are also some very crappy glass buildings. The same goes for cast concrete; some is nice, some is disgusting. And so the million dollar question (to which I have no answer) is: how do we get quality design and materials out of our developers? It's not like there's some objective scale of quality that you can write into a DA. So are we stuck just hoping for the developers who get it "right"? Is it a matter to be left to market forces, or can we encourage it in some way?

[someone123]

I don't think market forces work very well when it comes to architecture. There's a neighbourhood/social effect people don't really account for, particularly if they're renters. On top of that they don't necessarily know what the possibilities are or how a building will age over time. In an area like Clayton Park you don't really have a choice between an average building and a nicer looking building. They're basically all ugly, and they are all subject to the same stupid setback and density rules.

For the DAs I think the ideal is to have specific agreements but fast approval times. I think a lot of the bad designs are actually a function of a bad planning regime. A huge number of projects outside of the HbD area are held up for no reason and end up being built just as they were proposed, but after a year or two of delays and added expense. That's all money that could go in to better designs.

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

Sadly, I think the developer has a leg to stand on here. Reading the DA:

"3.4.2 The design, form, and exterior materials of the building shall, in the opinion of the Development Officer, generally conform to the Building Elevations included with this Agreement as Schedules F, G and H."

First of all, that's a fairly loose requirement with a lot of room for latitude. Second, Shedules F, G, H are basic 2D elevations with almost no reference to what the exterior materials are intended to be. In other words, there's absolutely nothing to hold the developer to the renderings. I won't speculate as to where the blame lies for this (intentional?) looseness. Further reminder that the number one rule of the development realm is that renderings don't mean squat.

As an aside, while I think this is unfortunate from a public trust POV, I'm not so sure it's overall a bad thing. All-glass towers certainly have a slick appeal to them, but they're notorious for having terrible heat gain problems in the summer and very poor insulation in the winter (and also often water problems).

I think this building could still look very attractive with 40% glass or less. The King's Wharf towers appear to have less than 40% glass and are attractive towers. Without seeing the new renderings how can the public or NS Utility Review Board know if the tower will still be rounded or that the windows will be close to 40% glass (less than 40% glass could be 10%)?

Geoff Keddy (the architect for this tower) sent a feedback letter to allnovascotia.com that was published in the March 7, 2013 edition. His quote was "The public should be informed of honest information versus contrived subjective concoctions by amateur reporters/writers.".

When does Geoff Keddy plan to start educating the public? The almost all glass tower is still shown on the Geoff Keddy Architect website - http://www.geoffkeddy.com/Commercial/album/index.html. If this is such an energy inefficient design then why do they continue to show it on their website? If Geoff Keddy would like to educate the public then post the new renderings on their website. That would be a better place to educate the public than by making condescending remarks in the feedback section of allnovascotia.com.

[halifaxboyns]

Looks like he wants to 'clear his name' after being caught saying one thing and intending to do another...

CH Article

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by halifaxboyns

Looks like he wants to 'clear his name' after being caught saying one thing and intending to do another...

CH Article

Interesting. So this seems to indicate that it is moving forward. I read the NS Utility review Board decision and it didn't seem to indicate that the development agreement approval was retracted (allnovascotia.com gave that impression).

It can still be a decent looking project if it retains its general shape (semi-circular). I just hope that it won't be similar to the other Horizon towers I and II.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

Interesting. So this seems to indicate that it is moving forward. I read the NS Utility review Board decision and it didn't seem to indicate that the development agreement approval was retracted (allnovascotia.com gave that impression).

It can still be a decent looking project if it retains its general shape (semi-circular). I just hope that it won't be similar to the other Horizon towers I and II.

I'd guess its Halifax journalism. If the things we read in the newspaper were true, half of the developments that have proceeded would be dead and half the dead ones would be built!

[someone123]

Apparently the appeal against Can-Euro has been dismissed and they're moving forward with design work for the project. They already have a DA from the city. It's an apartment building so they could conceivably start construction relatively soon.

[Dmajackson]

Appeal Court clears late developer of design allegations
June 14, 2013 - 6:58pm BRUCE ERSKINE BUSINESS REPORTER

Halifax developer Otto Gaspar didn’t live to hear his name cleared by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

“It’s a shame that he wasn’t here,” said Tim Keddy, property manager with Gaspar’s company, Can-Euro Investments Ltd., in an interview on Friday.

The court this week quashed a March Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board decision that Gaspar, who died a few weeks ago, intentionally misled the public with drawings of a planned $36-million, 27-storey Dartmouth residential building.

....

Read More: thechronicleherald.ca

[Dmajackson]

Geoff Keddy Architects has a new rendering for this site;


Source

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Geoff Keddy Architects has a new rendering for this site;


Source

It looks like a rectangular tower. Quite a change from the original rounded design.

[Hali87]

I wonder if the cladding looks that ambiguous on purpose? If it's going to be uniform grey anodized aluminum (which may or may not look good), the rendering does a poor job of showing that. What's with the random white spots?

[sdm]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It looks like a rectangular tower. Quite a change from the original rounded design.

something tells me that this rendering is of the original concept, just the backside not facing the road?

[Aya_Akai]

Originally Posted by fenwick16

It looks like a rectangular tower. Quite a change from the original rounded design.

If you toggle back and forth between the 2 images on the website, this is the back 2 sides of the building, since it's going to be shaped like a pie slice.

[Dmajackson]

Website's up and running. Always a good sign.

The Europa

[TheNovaScotian]

This is great news. I think next to the other ones this will look even better.
* (if built to the specs submitted)

[fenwick16]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Website's up and running. Always a good sign.

The Europa

Great to see the design hasn't changed: